Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by he grant, May 15, 2022.
You're an idiot if you think Joe and Marvis were remotely similar.
Foreman didn't just walk in winging uppercuts at Frazier.
How Foreman got there is just as important as the results.
If not more so. It's a fact so many posters miss.
It's the physicality of Foreman that was the difference.
Tyson for all of his offensive excellence wasn't that
style of fighter. He was much more conventional
and technique dependent than Foreman. (Though Foreman was
much bettered schooled than most give credit for,
it was just applied very differently, taking advantage of his physical
Tyson would have a much harder task landing his uppercuts
on Frazier than Foreman did. Frazier may be able to
push Tyson around. Something he couldn't do against
So he won in a row: José Ribalta, James Tillis, James Smith (he even has one heavyweight champion in his resume), so he tried out against Mike Tyson.
In my opinion Marvis Frazier could (and should) box in cruiserweight.
Even before the defeat by Larry Holmes in a fight in which he received only a slightly smaller beating than against Mike Tyson.
He weighed 210 pounds in the match against Mike Tyson.
Tyson has a chance but as seen when he faces competition he cannot blow out easily he gets flustered, Joe has proven to be the far more consistent and strong willed fighter against the stronger competition of his era.
As for Holmes Joe smokes him but it would go the distance.
Styles make fights and a Tyson blowout would have been possible .. you have to survive early vs Tyson to win ...
A compete example of a father ruining a son's career .. Marvin tried in everyday to emulate his dad when he should have been a cruiserweight boxer instead of a heavyweight swarmer ..
Due respect but your reply makes no sense.
You stated that Tyson would land twice as much (on Frazier) than Foreman did because he’s faster and more accurate.
Should I have replied as you did by stating that’s irrelevant because Foreman had a completely different style? Of course not.
Of course they had different styles - and I detailed HOW Foreman’s style, based on greater size, strength, height and reach than Tyson, allowed Foreman to set Joe up and tee off on him.
LOL, you can’t deflect from those facts by falsely suggesting they’re irrelevant.
No proof that Foreman’s uppercut was more powerful? The uppercuts he laid on Frazier were clearly more powerful, better leveraged and more easily landed as the taller man - certainly more powerful than the single uppercut that put Marvis out on his feet.
Then you stated the power aspect is irrelevant (another deflection from relevant fact) because Tyson was better at landing the uppercut and more accurate. LOL.
Foreman easily landed his own uppercut among other power shots for the reasons already outlined - taller, better reached and stronger - able to manhandle and put Joe into perfect range - very relevant and impossible for Tyson to execute thusly - he certainly isn’t going to land better than George did and likely he will land that much less effectively in the short space of time Foreman did. And, in the meantime, Joe will be reaching Tyson far better than he did Foreman.
There is proof Frazier was higher level
opp. and Joe was certainly was light years better than his own son - the very opponent upon whom you pivoted to suggest that Joe would meet the exact same fate
And there is proof that as rounds mounted, Tyson became so much less effective and Joe rates very well to hang super tough if necessary and take Mike into those rounds.
Tyson was a mid range fighter. Joe was the optimal inside fighter - relentless, strong with excellent power - Joe will enforce a close proximity of engagement that Mike wasn’t so adept at and would definitely not enjoy.
As to Douglas, the point was relevant as it pertains to the absolute conviction Tyson fans had that Mike could/would do this, that and the other.
Even though that conviction was proven to be grossly misplaced time and again during Tyson’s actual career - somehow it lives on in fantasy bouts without due pause and applied analytics.
As for the usual excuses proffered for Tyson - not interested. From a forecasted 90 seconds life span for Douglas to Tyson actually being brutally beaten down and knocked out in the real world - well, it’s obvious Mike’s capabilities were exaggerated back then - just as they are being exaggerated in this case, IMO.
I said they will have the same outcome, not that they are necessarily similar.
I can, because I am trying to point out that Tyson doesn't need to push Frazier around like Foreman did in order to land more. His style and assets are good enough for him to do that without needing to push Frazier around.
Do you have a measuring device and a time machine ?!?
If not, it's just your opinion.
LOL what ?!? If for example Tyson will land double the uppercuts Foreman did, would it matter that Foreman hit with 10-15 % more power ??!???
Tyson will land them when they fight on the inside.
I wasn't necessarily comparing Joe to his own son, but to Tyson's competition in general.
Prime Tyson had no problem going the distance if he needed to, and he won. So if somehow a miracle happens and Frazier makes it to the end, Tyson will easily win on points.
Mike simply out powers and out lands Joe, he's superior in every possible way, except for stamina, but that will never come into play.
That would only be relevant if Tyson was at 100%, which he wasn't, and again, Douglas bring completely different assets to the table compared to Frazier.
Mike was not prepared, therefore it's not relevant. But the one thing that fight showed is that Mike had a chin and could take a beating and hang in there if needed.
You see WB, with mucho conviction, you immediately introduced Marvis’ Old Man into the discussion and did forecast the same complexion and outcome for Joe.
That was Mike’s fastest KO, a mere 30 seconds - an extraordinarily fast and devastating KO - even for Mike.
Marvis would have to be a carbon copy of Joe for Tyson to achieve same against Joe - so yes, you were necessarily comparing Marvis to Joe and that comparison is completely wrong.
Marvis Frazier had a 56-2 amateur record. His only losses came against Tony Tubbs (who Marvis also beat) in 1979 and James Broad in the 1980 Olympic Trials (and Marvis beat Broad as a pro).
Marvis also floored and outpointed Tim Witherspoon in an amateur bout in 1980.
In 1986, the year he lost to Tyson, Marvis began the year by outpointing James Smith. Smith finished the year winning the WBA belt from Tim Witherspoon, who said he gave up the belt and quit against Smith because he was tired of dealing with Don King.
After losing to Marvis, Smith won close decisions over Jesse Ferguson and David Bey. While "Old Man" Frazier threw Marvis in with Tyson.
I imagine if, instead of fighting Tyson, Marvis had faced Ferguson or Bey (and Smith had faced Tyson in 1986) ...
Marvis would've won decisions against either ... and Marvis very well could've been the guy in the ring fighting the disillusioned Witherspoon.
Had he not faced Tyson, it could very well have been Marvis Frazier vs. Tim Witherspoon in December 1986 for the WBA belt ... definitely a winnable fight for Marvis.
Joe Frazier ... great fighter. Terrible matchmaker.
Watching the Buster Mathis fight I always thought Frazier could potentially accomplish a lot on the inside, correct me if I’m wrong, I know he wasn’t 80s Mike but it was really the only time someone actually tried fighting on the inside properly. Maybe Joe Frazier is exactly the type you have to be? Maybe he’d get splattered like a paintball, who knows.